If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

“No longer willing to maintain the patch”??? Canonical, as usual, did nothing. It never was maintained by anyone from Canonical. The patch is a SUSE product and it's being dropped from Kubuntu because the patch was broken for Firefox 10. The patch was updated and is now being shipped to openSUSE users as part of the Firefox 11 update: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746591

Canonical did nothing? We actually fixed the patch to work with Firefox 10. I just checked the OpenSUSE repo, and the changes they're shipping to make it work with Firefox 11 are the same changes we applied in Ubuntu to make it work with Firefox 10.

But, feel free to continue your ill-informed Canonical rant rather than actually checking facts. It's always much better when people do that.

Unless you know of somebody paying developers to work on it that I'm not aware of.

Ok, they are unpaid, but the patch is already done by Canonical and OpenSUSE. Distro hopping from fork to fork seems unnecessary.
I just don't like popular releases that say they're open source, but won't accept input like its a pet project.

Ok, they are unpaid, but the patch is already done by Canonical and OpenSUSE. Distro hopping from fork to fork seems unnecessary.
I just don't like popular releases that say they're open source, but won't accept input like its a pet project.

I don't think they're unwilling to accept input. If you volunteer for the project and maintain it, I imagine they'd be happy to let you. And again, at this point Kubuntu IS a pet project. Complain to Ubuntu if you don't like that fact.

Anyway, Kubuntu developers have always been focused on creating a "pure" KDE distro, without anything non-KDE like Firefox. So I don't think this should be surprising - it's what they've always wanted to do, but weren't allowed while Ubuntu was running things.

Why are Linux developers unafraid of derailing their popular releases by treating them like a pet project?
(Seriously)

Because of their nerd rage. Weather they're being paid on not they aren't the only one using the software, they can't accept the fact they they are making something that is being released to the general public, a public that doesn't appreciate things being broken for arbitrary reasons.

It's funny that I don't remember seeing this kind of thing with closed source freeware on Windows and OS X, only with self righteous OSS devs, which doesn't make any damn sense.

Take that however you like, I may not be a dev, but I also have no non OSS software outside of some games.

Bye bye FF & Chrome : there are full of Google craps
In fact the question is : which one is the most neutral for web browsing ?

Um, what in Firefox is controlled by Google? Google only pays them to make the default search plugin and urlbar search Google, but both can be changed trivially, learn to about:config already, had both set to duckduckgo ssl for a very long time now.

Um, what in Firefox is controlled by Google? Google only pays them to make the default search plugin and urlbar search Google, but both can be changed trivially, learn to about:config already, had both set to duckduckgo ssl for a very long time now.

Anyway, Kubuntu developers have always been focused on creating a "pure" KDE distro, without anything non-KDE like Firefox. So I don't think this should be surprising - it's what they've always wanted to do, but weren't allowed while Ubuntu was running things.

But in my experience KDE's Konqueror and Rekonq browsers fail with many sites that require a login, sometimes interactive forms don't work, and they overwrite gnash/flash installed for Firefox. KDE's browsers work fine for most websites, but Firefox has never let me down (except for sites that require Adobe's Shockwave Player or for Unity browser games --which can't be helped without Wine).

Canonical did nothing? We actually fixed the patch to work with Firefox 10. I just checked the OpenSUSE repo, and the changes they're shipping to make it work with Firefox 11 are the same changes we applied in Ubuntu to make it work with Firefox 10.

But, feel free to continue your ill-informed Canonical rant rather than actually checking facts. It's always much better when people do that.

Yeah, you did so much great work that you drop that work… right…
Even if you were right: Why did you not upstream the updated patch to openSUSE? openSUSE is the upstream project for that patch.
So I may have been wrong, you yourself wrote that Canonical did another typical Canonical thing: Take some FOSS code, modify it slightly and not work upstream to integrate your changes.

Yeah, you did so much great work that you drop that work… right…
Even if you were right: Why did you not upstream the updated patch to openSUSE? openSUSE is the upstream project for that patch.
So I may have been wrong, you yourself wrote that Canonical did another typical Canonical thing: Take some FOSS code, modify it slightly and not work upstream to integrate your changes.

I dropped it because I don't want to have to support it for 5 years.

I had been reconsidering my decision to drop it, but reading the misinformed comments here from people like you who are making the assumption that I contribute nothing back upstream has only made me realise that I made the correct decision.